This Thursday at 4pm in the graduate common room at the Faculty Daniel Brigham will give a talk on the binary relation theory of judgment. Abstract below.
Michael Potter Substituting a ‘that’-clause with an apparently co-referring nominal complement such as ‘the proposition that p’ in the context of a propositional attitude report produces some striking effects. It can change the truth-value, grammaticality, and even intelligibility of the original sentence. This poses a challenge to anybody who thinks that propositional attitude reports of the form `A Vs that p’ express two-place relations. Jeffrey King (2002, 2007) has responded to this challenge by positing lexical ambiguity in attitude verbs. I argue that King’s defence is unsuccessful for two reasons: first, substitution failures arise even once we make the appropriate disambiguation; second, something similar to substitution failure also emerges when we consider restricted quantification into that-clause position, but King’s lexical ambiguity strategy cannot be extended to these cases. _____________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the CamPhilEvents mailing list, or change your membership options, please visit the list information page: http://bit.ly/CamPhilEvents List archive: http://bit.ly/CamPhilEventsArchive Please note that CamPhilEvents doesn't accept email attachments. See the list information page for further details and suggested alternatives.
